Paul Draper was defeated -and refuses to admit it !!!
in [Relativity]
|
From: ben6993 on 24 Mar 2010 12:25 On Mar 24, 11:59 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 24, 12:16 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 24, 8:22 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 23, 8:11 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 23, 3:52 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 23, 5:22 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:> On Mar 23, 11:52 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >betterdo it for much less than a second !! > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > (half or 1/4 second > RECORDED (just above ) facts > > > > > > > -------------------- > > > > > > > > ----------------------- > > > > > > > Presumably, Planck should get the credit for the idea of Planck time? > > > > > > ---------------------- > > > > > not exactly! > > > > > plank is no doubt a grat hero > > > > > but waht he did ddint deal withthe smallest photon energy > > > > > his formula was > > > > > E=hf > > > > > full stiop)!!! > > > > > but that is as i showed not the smallest single photon!! > > > > > as far as i know > > > > > th ePlank time derivation > > > > > was not done by Plank > > > > > it was done later !!! > > > > > 2 > > > > > plank ddint wrote his formula as > > > > > > E min photon = h times Plank time > > > > > that is good as i showed with my experiment > > > > > for a huge number of single photons > > > > > not for a single photon > > > > > his formula was again > > > > > > E = hf > > > > > and f is one second defined !! > > > > > the suggested probebly for the first time > > > > > unless found precedent-ed ) single photon of my > > > > > is done in 5.38 Exp-44 OF A SECOND !!! > > > > > 2 > > > > > even you all along the discussions withyou > > > > > spoke about 'instantaneous * > > > > > and you explicitly insisted that > > > > > > 'IT IS NOT TIME DEPENDENT !!!' > > > > > you repeated it again and again > > > > > and that is as well recorded !! > > > > > you can t now after all my fights here > > > > > come a twist your > > > > > instantaneous and not time dependent > > > > > to be instantaneous= as Plank time > > > > > instantaneous andnot time dependent is .... > > > > > ZERO TIME !!! > > > > > ans ikep again and again explainig thatnothing can be DONE > > > > > in zero time > > > > > and no one (aFair) around me including you ! > > > > > said **then** that he agrees with me !! > > > > > that noting can be done in zero time !! > > > > > i can remember me claiming that even an inelastic collision > > > > > is not done instantaneously !!! > > > > > and i dont remember you agreeing with me !! > > > > > it was me to do that hard work against all those dumb crocks > > > > > here !! > > > > > > so > > > > > sorry not much credit can be given even to you > > > > > > the only credit that i can give you is > > > > > that unlike the others -you showed and spoke about your > > > > > not being sure about the arguments in those threads > > > > > iow > > > > > you was doubtful about anything > > > > > ATB > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > ---------------------------- > > > > > and i dont remember you agreeing with me !! > > > > > it was me to do that hard work against all those dumb crocks > > > > > here !! > > > > > > so > > > > > sorry not much credit can be given even to you > > > > > I need no credit. The formula is all yours. That goes for any > > > > supposed improvement on E-hf that you care to claim. > > > > > I cannot understand your logic and so I have never agreed with you, > > > > but the discussions have been interesting to me, despite some mind > > > > bending illogicality. The illogicality has made me think things > > > > through more than I might otherwise have done. As in: "Amazing! How > > > > can anyone not understand that arguement". But I have always tried to > > > > understand how you see things from your point of view. > > > > > I thought that at last you were beginning to accept that the words > > > > 'instantaneous' [and, consequently, 'point'] do not necessarily imply > > > > zero size. I also thought that, as you now seem to be accepting that > > > > emission takes place from one instant to the next ....that your next > > > > logical step was going to be to accept the original formula E=hf. .... > > > > but, clearly, not yet. > > > > ---------------------- > > > it is interesting to find out that Ben 699 > > > from England !!(Manchester ?)about 68 years old > > > is the same time on the net as ..... who ???? > > > as Inertial = Artful = ???!!! (:-) > > > can i start to save my 100000 $ (:-) > > > Y.P > > > ----------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Dear Porat > > > Calm down, > > put your feet up, > > take it easy. > > > I am 60 not 68. > > (I wrote that in a post to you on Feb 22.) > > Does your basic error cause you to change your conclusions in any way? > > > But yes, you are quite right. I am Inertial and PD. > > You should now send that $1000000 dollars to a charity of my choice. > > Give me a few days to pick a favourite charity. > > > By the way, I am also Uncle Al, Sue, Androcles and also everyone else > > on this ng too. So that just leaves you and me. > > > And as I am an AI program, that just leaves you. > > > But I shouldn't feed your paranoia. None of the above is true.(Except > > that I really am 60 years old.) No believe me, honestly I am none of > > those people. Believe me, none of them, ... Honestly ... > > > Now, > > calm down, > > put your feet up, > > take it easy. > > > Regards > > Ben > > -------------------- > anyway > how long are you on the net?? > > did you was on the net before that ?? > as far as i remember you are a mathematician > am i right ?? > TIA > Y.Porat > --------------------- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Hi I see that your writing gives the impression that you have calmed down. What is the point of me divulging information about myself when you can again misquote it, and use it in pointless paranoid accusations? And especially when I have already told you that information on Feb 16th: it is easy to find with a google search. If you want to know about my postings on the ng, also use a google search. It is all under "Ben6993". No other name has been used. As I said, I deserve no credit/blame for your formulae. I seek none. They are nothing to do with me. Peace and tranquility to you. Ben
From: Y.Porat on 24 Mar 2010 16:38 On Mar 24, 6:25 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 24, 11:59 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 24, 12:16 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mar 24, 8:22 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 23, 8:11 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Mar 23, 3:52 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mar 23, 5:22 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:> On Mar 23, 11:52 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >betterdo it for much less than a second !! > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > (half or 1/4 second > RECORDED (just above ) facts > > > > > > > > -------------------- > > > > > > > > > ----------------------- > > > > > > > > Presumably, Planck should get the credit for the idea of Planck time? > > > > > > > ---------------------- > > > > > > not exactly! > > > > > > plank is no doubt a grat hero > > > > > > but waht he did ddint deal withthe smallest photon energy > > > > > > his formula was > > > > > > E=hf > > > > > > full stiop)!!! > > > > > > but that is as i showed not the smallest single photon!! > > > > > > as far as i know > > > > > > th ePlank time derivation > > > > > > was not done by Plank > > > > > > it was done later !!! > > > > > > 2 > > > > > > plank ddint wrote his formula as > > > > > > > E min photon = h times Plank time > > > > > > that is good as i showed with my experiment > > > > > > for a huge number of single photons > > > > > > not for a single photon > > > > > > his formula was again > > > > > > > E = hf > > > > > > and f is one second defined !! > > > > > > the suggested probebly for the first time > > > > > > unless found precedent-ed ) single photon of my > > > > > > is done in 5.38 Exp-44 OF A SECOND !!! > > > > > > 2 > > > > > > even you all along the discussions withyou > > > > > > spoke about 'instantaneous * > > > > > > and you explicitly insisted that > > > > > > > 'IT IS NOT TIME DEPENDENT !!!' > > > > > > you repeated it again and again > > > > > > and that is as well recorded !! > > > > > > you can t now after all my fights here > > > > > > come a twist your > > > > > > instantaneous and not time dependent > > > > > > to be instantaneous= as Plank time > > > > > > instantaneous andnot time dependent is .... > > > > > > ZERO TIME !!! > > > > > > ans ikep again and again explainig thatnothing can be DONE > > > > > > in zero time > > > > > > and no one (aFair) around me including you ! > > > > > > said **then** that he agrees with me !! > > > > > > that noting can be done in zero time !! > > > > > > i can remember me claiming that even an inelastic collision > > > > > > is not done instantaneously !!! > > > > > > and i dont remember you agreeing with me !! > > > > > > it was me to do that hard work against all those dumb crocks > > > > > > here !! > > > > > > > so > > > > > > sorry not much credit can be given even to you > > > > > > > the only credit that i can give you is > > > > > > that unlike the others -you showed and spoke about your > > > > > > not being sure about the arguments in those threads > > > > > > iow > > > > > > you was doubtful about anything > > > > > > ATB > > > > > > Y.Porat > > > > > > ---------------------------- > > > > > > and i dont remember you agreeing with me !! > > > > > > it was me to do that hard work against all those dumb crocks > > > > > > here !! > > > > > > > so > > > > > > sorry not much credit can be given even to you > > > > > > I need no credit. The formula is all yours. That goes for any > > > > > supposed improvement on E-hf that you care to claim. > > > > > > I cannot understand your logic and so I have never agreed with you, > > > > > but the discussions have been interesting to me, despite some mind > > > > > bending illogicality. The illogicality has made me think things > > > > > through more than I might otherwise have done. As in: "Amazing! How > > > > > can anyone not understand that arguement". But I have always tried to > > > > > understand how you see things from your point of view. > > > > > > I thought that at last you were beginning to accept that the words > > > > > 'instantaneous' [and, consequently, 'point'] do not necessarily imply > > > > > zero size. I also thought that, as you now seem to be accepting that > > > > > emission takes place from one instant to the next ....that your next > > > > > logical step was going to be to accept the original formula E=hf. .... > > > > > but, clearly, not yet. > > > > > ---------------------- > > > > it is interesting to find out that Ben 699 > > > > from England !!(Manchester ?)about 68 years old > > > > is the same time on the net as ..... who ???? > > > > as Inertial = Artful = ???!!! (:-) > > > > can i start to save my 100000 $ (:-) > > > > Y.P > > > > ----------------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > Dear Porat > > > > Calm down, > > > put your feet up, > > > take it easy. > > > > I am 60 not 68. > > > (I wrote that in a post to you on Feb 22.) > > > Does your basic error cause you to change your conclusions in any way? > > > > But yes, you are quite right. I am Inertial and PD. > > > You should now send that $1000000 dollars to a charity of my choice. > > > Give me a few days to pick a favourite charity. > > > > By the way, I am also Uncle Al, Sue, Androcles and also everyone else > > > on this ng too. So that just leaves you and me. > > > > And as I am an AI program, that just leaves you. > > > > But I shouldn't feed your paranoia. None of the above is true.(Except > > > that I really am 60 years old.) No believe me, honestly I am none of > > > those people. Believe me, none of them, ... Honestly ... > > > > Now, > > > calm down, > > > put your feet up, > > > take it easy. > > > > Regards > > > Ben > > > -------------------- > > anyway > > how long are you on the net?? > > > did you was on the net before that ?? > > as far as i remember you are a mathematician > > am i right ?? > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > --------------------- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Hi > > I see that your writing gives the impression that you have calmed > down. > > What is the point of me divulging information about myself when you > can again misquote it, and use it in pointless paranoid > accusations? And especially when I have already told you that > information on Feb 16th: it is easy to find with a google search. > If you want to know about my postings on the ng, also use a google > search. It is all under "Ben6993". No other name has been used. > > As I said, I deserve no credit/blame for your formulae. I seek none. > They are nothing to do with me. > > Peace and tranquility to you. > > Ben ------------------- ok i beleive you yet i cant understand how blocked you are on paradigms after all those long discussions explaantions experimental data etc let me tray a gain with you : do you understand that the *amount* of photon energy is time dependent ?? i dont mind(at this point ) how it is created how a photon is born how it is dying i mind the bottom line experimental data do you understand that the amount of energy it carries is time dependent ?? 2 do you understand that the amount of photon energy that are active less then a a second **is less** than that that is active during *one second ??* even if it was done b many (actually a huge number of single photons that no one of them was active one second but less than one second ?? 3 do you understand that if so E=hf that is one second defined because f is one second defined !!!-!!!!--- ----> is not the definition niether of one single *real* photon nor of many of them acting less then a second ???of iow ***there are real single photons** (no matter how many of them but all of them were active **less** than a second ) and therefore emit less energy than those that are active one second ?? lets make a pause until that point TIA Y.Porat -----------------------
From: ben6993 on 24 Mar 2010 17:36 On Mar 24, 8:38 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: <snip for brevity> > ------------------- > ok > i beleive you Acknowledged. > yet i cant understand how blocked you are on paradigms > after all those long discussions explaantions experimental data etc > let me tray a gain with you : > do you understand that > the *amount* of photon energy is > time dependent ?? No, I don't see it like that. A photon is emitted with a certain amount of energy. It keeps that energy during its lifetime. It yields up that exact amount of energy when it is absorbed. I knew that before these threads started. What I have realised during the threads, thanks to Inertial, is that the indivisibility of the energy goes beyond the one-off emission--> transmission --> absorption. An atom can only emit a photon of a certain energy if it already held that exact amount of indivisible energy inside the atom. From this viewpoint the energy in a photon is indestructable and who knows how many times a particular chunk of indivisible energy is re-emitted over and over again. That chunk of energy can never be a part of a less energetic photon. It can never be a part of a more energetic photon. It must always be emitted as a photon of exactly that amount of energy. I am still letting that sink in myself as it is quite amazing, really. > i dont mind(at this point ) how it is created > how a photon is born how it is dying > i mind the bottom line experimental data > do you understand that the amount of energy it carries > is time dependent ?? See above. The energy of that particular individual photon is a fixed constant for all time, not just in the current emission. > 2 > do you understand that the amount of photon energy > that are active less then a a second > **is less** than that that is active during *one second ??* > > even if it was done b many (actually a huge number of single photons > that no one of them was active > one second but less than one second ?? You may be surprised that I actually find it hard to follow what you mean by the above as what you are writing seems so different from the way I see it. From my point of view the energy in a photon is an indivisible constant. (But different photons can have different energies, of course.) It does not really matter how long it is "active" (if you mean by active ... "how long it is in transmission"). If you mean by "active" ... "how long it is in emission" then that is from one instant to the next i.e. emitted within a Planck time interval. I just can't see how time affects the energy in a photon. It is a constant in emission and re-emission who knows how many times that energy in a particular photon can be re-emitted. > 3 > do you understand that if so > E=hf that is one second defined > because f is one second defined !!!-!!!!--- > > ----> is not the definition niether of one single *real* photon > nor of many of them acting less then a second ???of > iow > ***there are real single photons** > (no matter how many of them but all of them > were active **less** than a second ) > and therefore > emit less energy than those that are active one second ?? > > lets make a pause until that point I paused after para 2. above and skipped para 3. as enough differences had already occurred. Save para 3. for another day as there is enough in 1. and 2, I believe. Ben
From: Inertial on 24 Mar 2010 18:29 "Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:5aab1148-a502-48ad-95b4-55b731762a0d(a)z4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 23, 8:11 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Mar 23, 3:52 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Mar 23, 5:22 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:> On Mar 23, >> > 11:52 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > > >> >> >> >betterdo it for much less than a second !! >> > > > > >> >> >> > (half or 1/4 second > RECORDED (just above ) facts >> > > > -------------------- >> >> > > > ----------------------- >> >> > > Presumably, Planck should get the credit for the idea of Planck time? >> >> > ---------------------- >> > not exactly! >> > plank is no doubt a grat hero >> > but waht he did ddint deal withthe smallest photon energy >> > his formula was >> > E=hf >> > full stiop)!!! >> > but that is as i showed not the smallest single photon!! >> > as far as i know >> > th ePlank time derivation >> > was not done by Plank >> > it was done later !!! >> > 2 >> > plank ddint wrote his formula as >> >> > E min photon = h times Plank time >> > that is good as i showed with my experiment >> > for a huge number of single photons >> > not for a single photon >> > his formula was again >> >> > E = hf >> > and f is one second defined !! >> > the suggested probebly for the first time >> > unless found precedent-ed ) single photon of my >> > is done in 5.38 Exp-44 OF A SECOND !!! >> > 2 >> > even you all along the discussions withyou >> > spoke about 'instantaneous * >> > and you explicitly insisted that >> >> > 'IT IS NOT TIME DEPENDENT !!!' >> > you repeated it again and again >> > and that is as well recorded !! >> > you can t now after all my fights here >> > come a twist your >> > instantaneous and not time dependent >> > to be instantaneous= as Plank time >> > instantaneous andnot time dependent is .... >> > ZERO TIME !!! >> > ans ikep again and again explainig thatnothing can be DONE >> > in zero time >> > and no one (aFair) around me including you ! >> > said **then** that he agrees with me !! >> > that noting can be done in zero time !! >> > i can remember me claiming that even an inelastic collision >> > is not done instantaneously !!! >> > and i dont remember you agreeing with me !! >> > it was me to do that hard work against all those dumb crocks >> > here !! >> >> > so >> > sorry not much credit can be given even to you >> >> > the only credit that i can give you is >> > that unlike the others -you showed and spoke about your >> > not being sure about the arguments in those threads >> > iow >> > you was doubtful about anything >> > ATB >> > Y.Porat >> > ---------------------------- >> > and i dont remember you agreeing with me !! >> > it was me to do that hard work against all those dumb crocks >> > here !! >> >> > so >> > sorry not much credit can be given even to you >> >> I need no credit. The formula is all yours. That goes for any >> supposed improvement on E-hf that you care to claim. >> >> I cannot understand your logic and so I have never agreed with you, >> but the discussions have been interesting to me, despite some mind >> bending illogicality. The illogicality has made me think things >> through more than I might otherwise have done. As in: "Amazing! How >> can anyone not understand that arguement". But I have always tried to >> understand how you see things from your point of view. >> >> I thought that at last you were beginning to accept that the words >> 'instantaneous' [and, consequently, 'point'] do not necessarily imply >> zero size. I also thought that, as you now seem to be accepting that >> emission takes place from one instant to the next ....that your next >> logical step was going to be to accept the original formula E=hf. .... >> but, clearly, not yet. > > ---------------------- > it is interesting to find out that Ben 699 > from England !!(Manchester ?)about 68 years old > is the same time on the net as ..... who ???? > as Inertial = Artful = ???!!! (:-) > can i start to save my 100000 $ (:-) > Y.P > ---------------------------- You are paranoid . and as usual leaping to unfounded conclusions from ignorance.
From: Inertial on 24 Mar 2010 18:41
"Y.Porat" <y.y.porat(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:5cd12de8-3564-4f10-86d8-487641a1278b(a)l25g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... > On Mar 24, 6:25 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> On Mar 24, 11:59 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Mar 24, 12:16 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > On Mar 24, 8:22 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > On Mar 23, 8:11 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > On Mar 23, 3:52 pm, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > > > > > On Mar 23, 5:22 pm, ben6993 <ben6...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:> On >> > > > > > Mar 23, 11:52 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >betterdo it for much less than a second !! >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > (half or 1/4 second > RECORDED (just above ) >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > facts >> > > > > > > > -------------------- >> >> > > > > > > > ----------------------- >> >> > > > > > > Presumably, Planck should get the credit for the idea of >> > > > > > > Planck time? >> >> > > > > > ---------------------- >> > > > > > not exactly! >> > > > > > plank is no doubt a grat hero >> > > > > > but waht he did ddint deal withthe smallest photon energy >> > > > > > his formula was >> > > > > > E=hf >> > > > > > full stiop)!!! >> > > > > > but that is as i showed not the smallest single photon!! >> > > > > > as far as i know >> > > > > > th ePlank time derivation >> > > > > > was not done by Plank >> > > > > > it was done later !!! >> > > > > > 2 >> > > > > > plank ddint wrote his formula as >> >> > > > > > E min photon = h times Plank time >> > > > > > that is good as i showed with my experiment >> > > > > > for a huge number of single photons >> > > > > > not for a single photon >> > > > > > his formula was again >> >> > > > > > E = hf >> > > > > > and f is one second defined !! >> > > > > > the suggested probebly for the first time >> > > > > > unless found precedent-ed ) single photon of my >> > > > > > is done in 5.38 Exp-44 OF A SECOND !!! >> > > > > > 2 >> > > > > > even you all along the discussions withyou >> > > > > > spoke about 'instantaneous * >> > > > > > and you explicitly insisted that >> >> > > > > > 'IT IS NOT TIME DEPENDENT !!!' >> > > > > > you repeated it again and again >> > > > > > and that is as well recorded !! >> > > > > > you can t now after all my fights here >> > > > > > come a twist your >> > > > > > instantaneous and not time dependent >> > > > > > to be instantaneous= as Plank time >> > > > > > instantaneous andnot time dependent is .... >> > > > > > ZERO TIME !!! >> > > > > > ans ikep again and again explainig thatnothing can be DONE >> > > > > > in zero time >> > > > > > and no one (aFair) around me including you ! >> > > > > > said **then** that he agrees with me !! >> > > > > > that noting can be done in zero time !! >> > > > > > i can remember me claiming that even an inelastic collision >> > > > > > is not done instantaneously !!! >> > > > > > and i dont remember you agreeing with me !! >> > > > > > it was me to do that hard work against all those dumb crocks >> > > > > > here !! >> >> > > > > > so >> > > > > > sorry not much credit can be given even to you >> >> > > > > > the only credit that i can give you is >> > > > > > that unlike the others -you showed and spoke about your >> > > > > > not being sure about the arguments in those threads >> > > > > > iow >> > > > > > you was doubtful about anything >> > > > > > ATB >> > > > > > Y.Porat >> > > > > > ---------------------------- >> > > > > > and i dont remember you agreeing with me !! >> > > > > > it was me to do that hard work against all those dumb crocks >> > > > > > here !! >> >> > > > > > so >> > > > > > sorry not much credit can be given even to you >> >> > > > > I need no credit. The formula is all yours. That goes for any >> > > > > supposed improvement on E-hf that you care to claim. >> >> > > > > I cannot understand your logic and so I have never agreed with >> > > > > you, >> > > > > but the discussions have been interesting to me, despite some >> > > > > mind >> > > > > bending illogicality. The illogicality has made me think things >> > > > > through more than I might otherwise have done. As in: "Amazing! >> > > > > How >> > > > > can anyone not understand that arguement". But I have always >> > > > > tried to >> > > > > understand how you see things from your point of view. >> >> > > > > I thought that at last you were beginning to accept that the >> > > > > words >> > > > > 'instantaneous' [and, consequently, 'point'] do not necessarily >> > > > > imply >> > > > > zero size. I also thought that, as you now seem to be accepting >> > > > > that >> > > > > emission takes place from one instant to the next ....that your >> > > > > next >> > > > > logical step was going to be to accept the original formula E=hf. >> > > > > .... >> > > > > but, clearly, not yet. >> >> > > > ---------------------- >> > > > it is interesting to find out that Ben 699 >> > > > from England !!(Manchester ?)about 68 years old >> > > > is the same time on the net as ..... who ???? >> > > > as Inertial = Artful = ???!!! (:-) >> > > > can i start to save my 100000 $ (:-) >> > > > Y.P >> > > > ----------------------------- Hide quoted text - >> >> > > > - Show quoted text - >> >> > > Dear Porat >> >> > > Calm down, >> > > put your feet up, >> > > take it easy. >> >> > > I am 60 not 68. >> > > (I wrote that in a post to you on Feb 22.) >> > > Does your basic error cause you to change your conclusions in any >> > > way? >> >> > > But yes, you are quite right. I am Inertial and PD. >> > > You should now send that $1000000 dollars to a charity of my choice. >> > > Give me a few days to pick a favourite charity. >> >> > > By the way, I am also Uncle Al, Sue, Androcles and also everyone else >> > > on this ng too. So that just leaves you and me. >> >> > > And as I am an AI program, that just leaves you. >> >> > > But I shouldn't feed your paranoia. None of the above is >> > > true.(Except >> > > that I really am 60 years old.) No believe me, honestly I am none of >> > > those people. Believe me, none of them, ... Honestly ... >> >> > > Now, >> > > calm down, >> > > put your feet up, >> > > take it easy. >> >> > > Regards >> > > Ben >> >> > -------------------- >> > anyway >> > how long are you on the net?? >> >> > did you was on the net before that ?? >> > as far as i remember you are a mathematician >> > am i right ?? >> > TIA >> > Y.Porat >> > --------------------- Hide quoted text - >> >> > - Show quoted text - >> >> Hi >> >> I see that your writing gives the impression that you have calmed >> down. >> >> What is the point of me divulging information about myself when you >> can again misquote it, and use it in pointless paranoid >> accusations? And especially when I have already told you that >> information on Feb 16th: it is easy to find with a google search. >> If you want to know about my postings on the ng, also use a google >> search. It is all under "Ben6993". No other name has been used. >> >> As I said, I deserve no credit/blame for your formulae. I seek none. >> They are nothing to do with me. >> >> Peace and tranquility to you. >> >> Ben > > ------------------- > ok > i beleive you > yet i cant understand how blocked you are on paradigms > after all those long discussions explaantions experimental data etc We can't believe how blocked you are. The physics has been explained to you and the experimental justification. let me tray a gain with you : > do you understand that > the *amount* of photon energy is > time dependent ?? No .. it is not. never has been. You've never shown that. The total NUMBER of photons is time dependent .. the energy PER PHOTON is not > i dont mind(at this point ) how it is created > how a photon is born how it is dying > i mind the bottom line experimental data Which you ignore. > do you understand that the amount of energy it carries > is time dependent ?? It is not. It is always E = hf for each photon. > 2 > do you understand that the amount of photon energy > that are active less then a a second > **is less** than that that is active during *one second ??* No .. it is not. There are fewer photons in a beam of light in shorter time, but each has the same energy > even if it was done b many (actually a huge number of single photons > that no one of them was active > one second but less than one second ?? That's what we've been xplaining to you .. a few small fraction of a second for the photon to be created, travel and then be destroyed > 3 > do you understand that if so > E=hf that is one second defined It is NOT one second defined. It is a time independent formula > because f is one second defined !!!-!!!!--- So, by your logic, the speed of a car is time dependent .. and so cannot be distance divided by time because a car can travel for less than a second. That is pure nonsense (as is your argument) > ----> is not the definition niether of one single *real* photon Yes it is > nor of many of them Of coruse it is not the formula for many of them. you need to multiple E = hf by thenumber of photons > acting less then a second ???of The time doesn't matter .. except when it affect the number of photons arriving > iow > ***there are real single photons** Yes .. with energy E = hf as has been found experimentally .. and as a liar and fraud you deliberately ignore this > (no matter how many of them but all of them > were active **less** than a second ) Of course .. and as E = hf is NOT time dependent, that is fine. Each has that amount of energy. Simple logic shows that If there is X energy from N photons, and in twice the time there is 2xX energy from 2xN photons, then that means EACH PHOTON has the same energy regardless of the time. This is from your OWN initial thought experiment. Thus PROVING that the energy of a photon is NOT time dependent > and therefore > emit less energy than those that are active one second ?? > > lets make a pause until that point Let me repeat ths SIMPEL PROOF that you are wrong If there is X energy from N photons, and in twice the time there is 2xX energy from 2xN photons, then that means EACH PHOTON has the same energy regardless of the time. This is from your OWN initial thought experiment. Thus PROVING that the energy of a photon is NOT time dependent |